Summary
The Eleventh Circuit held that under Florida law, an attorney retained solely to represent a trustee owes no fiduciary duty to the trust beneficiaries. The court relied on Fla. Stat. § 90.5021(2), which defines only the trustee as the lawyer’s client, and on Florida Bar rules that limit a lawyer’s duties to third parties when representing a fiduciary. The panel distinguished contrary dicta and affirmed summary judgment for the attorney.
Holdings
- Under Florida law, an attorney retained to represent only the trustee owes no fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the trust.
Questions Presented
- Whether, under Florida law, an attorney retained to represent only the trustee also owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the trust.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (5)
- McCormick v. Cox, 118 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)(distinguished)
- In re Estate of Gory, 570 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(distinguished)
- Levinson v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 245 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2001)(applied)
- Bravo v. United States, 577 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2009)(applied)
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003)(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…